Navigation

Iran: (Video) Not a Twitter revolution, not a CIA revolution

By Reese Erlich

June 26, 2009 -- Iran is not undergoing a ``Twitter Revolution''. The term simultaneously
mischaracterizes and trivialises the important mass movement developing
in Iran. Here’s how it all began. The Iranian government
prohibited foreign reporters from traveling outside Tehran without
special permission, and later confined them to their hotel rooms and
offices. CNN and other cable networks were particularly desperate to
find ways to show the large demonstrations and government repression.
So they turned to internet sites such as Facebook and Twitter in a
frantic effort to get information. Since reporters were getting most of
their information from Tweets and You Tube video clips, the notion of a
“Twitter Revolution” was born.

We reporters love a catch phrase
and, Twitter being all a flutter in the West, it seemed to fit. It’s a
catchy phrase but highly misleading.

First of all the vast
majority of Iranians have no access to Twitter. While reporting in
Tehran, I personally didn’t encounter anyone who used it regularly. A
relatively small number of young, economically well off Iranians do use
Twitter. A larger number have access to the Internet. However, in the
beginning, most demonstrations were organised through word of mouth,
mobile phone calls and text messaging.

But somehow “Text
Messaging Revolution” doesn’t have that modern, sexy ring, especially
if you have to type it with your thumbs on a tiny keyboard.

More
importantly, by focusing on the latest in Internet communications,
cable TV networks intentionally or unintentionally characterise a
genuine mass movement as something supported mainly by the Twittering
classes.

I witnessed tens of thousands of mostly young people
coming out into the streets in spontaneous campaign rallies in the days
leading up to the election – most of whom had never heard of Twitter.

They
shared a common joy not only campaigning for reformist Mirhossein
Mousavi, but in being able to freely express themselves for the first
time in many years. When the government announced an overwhelming
victory for hardliner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad only two hours after the
polls closed, people became furious.

Over the next few days,
hundreds of thousands of Iranians poured into the streets in Tehran and
cities around the country. They organised silent marches through word
of mouth and phone calls since the government had shut down text
messaging just prior to the election. Contrary to popular perception,
these gatherings included women in chadors, workers and clerics – not
just the Twittering classes. Spontaneous marches took place in south
Tehran, a decidedly poorer section of town and supposedly a stronghold
for Ahmadinejad.

Iranians initially protested what they perceived
as massive vote fraud, but that quickly evolved as the protests grew in
size and breadth. In the week after the June 14 election, millions of
Iranians vented 30 years of pent up anger at a repressive system.

Iranian
youth particularly resented President Ahmadinejad’s support for
religious militia attacks on unmarried young men and women walking
together and against women not covering enough hair with their hijab.
Workers resented the 24 per cent annual inflation that robbed them of
real wage increases. Independent trade unionists had been fighting for
decent wages and for the right to organise.

Some demonstrators
wanted a more moderate Islamic government. Others advocated a
separation of mosque and state, and a return to parliamentary
democracy. They are well aware that when Iran had a genuine
parliamentary system under Prime Minister Mossadegh, the CIA overthrew
it in 1953 in order to promote the Shah as dictator. I didn’t meet any
Iranians calling for US intervention; that’s strictly a debate inside
the Washington beltway.

Some Iranian friends have asked me why
Supreme Leader Sayyed Ali Khamenei would throw his support behind
Ahmadinejad when his presidency was so clearly damaging the country at
home and abroad. Initially, Khamenei supported the president because
they share common ideological and political positions. Later, the top
clerical leaders saw the mass movement that coalesced around Mousavi’s
campaign as a direct threat to government stability and their future
rule.

Since June 21, the top clerics, military and intelligence
services have mobilised their entire apparatus to crush the movement
for social and economic change.

The mass movement that sprang
forth in the past few weeks has been 30 years in coming. It’s not a
Twitter Revolution, nor even a “velvet revolution” like those in
Eastern Europe.

It’s a genuine Iranian mass movement made up of
students, workers, women and middle-class folks. It may not be strong
enough to topple the system today but is sowing the seeds for future
struggles.

[Reese Erlich is a freelance journalist and author from the United States. His books include the 2003 best-seller, Target Iraq: What the News Media Didn't Tell You, 2007's The Iran Agenda: The Real Story of US Policy and the Middle-East Crisis, and his newest release Dateline Havana: The Real Story of US Policy and the Future of Cuba. He has produced many radio documentaries, including a series hosted by Walter Cronkite.]